J
jim beam
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>>>>>>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>>>>>>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>>>>>>>> 175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>>>>>>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>>>>>>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.
>>>>>>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>>>>>>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>>>>>>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.
>>>>>> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>>>>>> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>>>>>> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>>>>>> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?
>>>>>> you're bullshitting peter. grow up.
>>>>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>>>>> who's bullshitting.
>>>> deny this, *****.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>>>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.
>>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>>>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
>>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>>>> fundamentally incorrect.
>>>>>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>>>>>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.
>>>>> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>>>>> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>>>>> of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>>>>> radial and lateral loads?
>>>> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>>>> bullshitting? terribly sorry!
>>>>>>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>>>>>>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.
>>>>>> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>>>>>> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>>>>>> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>>>>>> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]
>>>>> I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.
>>>> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>>>> squirm you want to add?
>>>>>>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.
>>>>>> wow! that's rich!
>>>>> Maybe, but obviously true.
>>>> you are a shameless bullshitting *****.
>>>>>>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>>>>> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>>>>>> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! nice one. really
>>>>>> convincing too!
>>>>> You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>>>>> necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?
>>>> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
>>> Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"
>>> Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>>> spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>>> about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>>> don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>>> held at the same angle.
>> Dear Spike
>>
>> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:
>>
>> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg
>>
>> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible:
>>
>> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg
>>
>> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>> fixed against the back of the blue plate.
>>
>> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.
>>
>> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
> Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.
>
> Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
> properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
> production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
> and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
> end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
> taken.)
>
> Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
> is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
> spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
> readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
> spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
> want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
> picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
> other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
> spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
> and thinner.
>
> So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
> I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
> given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
> mistake.
>
> --
>
> Spike
>
admit it spike, you just don't like me. say the words.
[and no, i did not fudge the calibration - i drew the while pic in
photoshop instead. took ma about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at
that stuff. i don't even own a tensiometer. saved me $60!]
> On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>>>>>>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>>>>>>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>>>>>>>> 175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>>>>>>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>>>>>>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.
>>>>>>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>>>>>>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>>>>>>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.
>>>>>> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>>>>>> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>>>>>> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>>>>>> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?
>>>>>> you're bullshitting peter. grow up.
>>>>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>>>>> who's bullshitting.
>>>> deny this, *****.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>>>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.
>>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>>>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
>>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>>>> fundamentally incorrect.
>>>>>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>>>>>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.
>>>>> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>>>>> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>>>>> of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>>>>> radial and lateral loads?
>>>> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>>>> bullshitting? terribly sorry!
>>>>>>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>>>>>>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.
>>>>>> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>>>>>> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>>>>>> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>>>>>> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]
>>>>> I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.
>>>> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>>>> squirm you want to add?
>>>>>>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.
>>>>>> wow! that's rich!
>>>>> Maybe, but obviously true.
>>>> you are a shameless bullshitting *****.
>>>>>>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>>>>> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>>>>>> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! nice one. really
>>>>>> convincing too!
>>>>> You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>>>>> necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?
>>>> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
>>> Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"
>>> Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>>> spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>>> about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>>> don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>>> held at the same angle.
>> Dear Spike
>>
>> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:
>>
>> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg
>>
>> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible:
>>
>> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg
>>
>> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>> fixed against the back of the blue plate.
>>
>> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.
>>
>> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
> Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.
>
> Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
> properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
> production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
> and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
> end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
> taken.)
>
> Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
> is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
> spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
> readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
> spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
> want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
> picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
> other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
> spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
> and thinner.
>
> So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
> I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
> given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
> mistake.
>
> --
>
> Spike
>
admit it spike, you just don't like me. say the words.
[and no, i did not fudge the calibration - i drew the while pic in
photoshop instead. took ma about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at
that stuff. i don't even own a tensiometer. saved me $60!]